Comparison of the efficacy and safety of circumcision by freehand technique and Plastibell device in children

Evaluating Safety of Ring Versus Clamp Devices in Neonatal Circumcision: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

While device-based circumcision is considered non-inferior to traditional dissection, there is no consensus on the efficacy and safety of ring devices in comparison with clamp devices. We aimed to compare the safety outcomes of ring-based versus clamp-based circumcision techniques in neonates.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and CINAHL were searched following the Cochrane collaboration (PRISMA guidelines), without language restrictions, to identify relevant randomized controlled trials. Adverse events, bleeding events, infection events, and procedure time were extracted and analyzed from the selected studies.

RESULTS

From 1661 citations, seven trials were included, encompassing 3390 patients. These studies compared ring-based to clamp-based circumcision devices in neonates. No significant difference was found in overall adverse events between the two groups. However, ring devices showed significantly fewer bleeding events compared to clamp devices. Infection events and procedure time were similar for both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Both ring and clamp devices have similar safety profiles, with ring devices potentially offering a reduced risk of bleeding. A comprehensive understanding of ring-specific complications and cosmetic outcomes is necessary for a more complete evaluation of these circumcision techniques. Our analysis is limited from a lack of detailed examination of ring-specific complications and their impact on cosmetic results. The included studies varied in quality, and some exhibited a risk of bias.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV Treatment Study.

Comparison of ring instruments and classic circumcision methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim

To determine the advantages and disadvantages of both methods by comparing classic circumcision methods with circumcision methods assisted by ring instruments.

Material-Methods

Only studies that compared open procedures and ring devices for male circumcision were included. A total of 6226 patients were examined in 14 studies. The methodological quality of RCT was evaluated using Cochrane collaboration’s tools. The Review Manager software statistical package was used to analyze the ORs for dichotomous variables and the mean differences for continuous variables. The proportion of heterogeneity across the studies was tested using the I 2 index. Potential publication bias was assessed by identifying the presence of visual asymmetry/symmetry with funnel plot studies.

Results

There were 1812 patients in the open circumcision group and 4414 patients in the ring groups. In total, there was no difference identified between the groups. The open procedure had an advantage compared to the Plastibell subgroup for hemorrhage, while in the other two subgroups, the ring instrument groups had the advantage. Statistically significant in favor of ring devices was found in operating time.There was no difference between the groups for early (postoperative) pain scores. For late-period pain scores, differences with statistical significance were identified in favor of ring devices both in subgroups and in total. For satisfaction, apart from one study in the PrePex group, statistical significance was obtained in favor of ring devices for the other subgroups and in total.

Conclusion

The main factors in favor of the use of ring instruments for circumcision are the short total surgical duration, not requiring advanced surgical experience, ease of learning and application, and patient relative satisfaction rates. However, it is a condition to know open circumcision methods and to have experience of this surgery for use in situations with hemorrhage complications, mainly, and without ring instruments of appropriate size.